Listening to Alistair Darling's third budget you might be forgiven for thinking there isn't an election hurtling towards him. Who are these "others" and "some people" the chancellor kept mentioning in his speech, the ones who would have wrecked the economy if they'd been given half a chance?

They were the Tories, of course. But, being Darling, he didn't mention them by name until near the end and didn't indulge in any over politicking until he revealed - deadpan as ever – that one of the states with which Britain has negotiated a tax-avoidance clampdown is Belize. What's more the deal will be signed any day now, a lot faster than it took to sort out Lord Ashcroft's tax affairs.

By budget standards, certainly by Darling budget standards, it triggered unusually loud laughter on the Labour and Lib Dem benches, stoney faces behind David Cameron. It had taken a long time coming. This was a budget which didn't really need to happen, the taxes were mostly laid out at the PBR in December and the spending cuts will be fleshed out after the election.

But it had to happen for propriety's sake and because it gave the Treasury a chance to strike an appropriate tone with both the voters and with markets, which have in their hands the fate of sterling and the price of lending billions to whoever wins power on 6 May.

What tone? One of high-minded responsibility, no flashy giveaways, a long-term regard for business and the wealth-creating process. That coupled with proper concern for society's weaker members, the old, the sick and the young, and a reasonable imposition of higher taxes on those whose broad shoulders can bear it most. To me it sounded wholesome and social democratic with a sensible nod to entrepreneurs upon whose drive and talent much depends.

That's what I heard as I listened to the budget speech, tweeting away as part of my multi-tasking life in the new Britain. That's what I re-read over a coffee a few minutes ago. Markets would have punished any tricks of the kind Chancellor Brown – or even Chancellor Balls – might have tried on. As I type the stock market is slightly up, but the bond market is grumpy. Ten-year gilts are down sharply. That's bad.

It's early days. The devil is always in the detail and the experts are still poring over the small print of the Red Book, the Treasury's traditional bible of budget day. It checks what a chancellor says at the dispatch box against what he says in the graphs and tables. Sometimes the gap is a large one. There are always hidden policy swerves waiting to be unpicked.

The BBC is reporting that up to 20 magistrates courts will close: that will be unpopular. A tax-numerate Lib Dem briefer is explaining the "stamp duty scam" – putting property into a special purpose trust to avoid the new 5% rate on £1m property – over my shoulder.

So just because Alistair Darling doesn't sound very political doesn't mean he doesn't think politically. As Decca Aitkenhead said in her flattering profile in the Guardian – better late than never – the chancellor does have strong views, it's just that he doesn't care to make a fuss. He's not a egotist, tougher than he looks. After a wobbly start at No 11 the crisis has turned out to suit his temperament very well.

So what this budget was about was trying to persuade voters of all stripes that the government made choices about how to treat the global financial crisis and was broadly right in what it did – while those "others" and "some people" Darling kept talking about got it broadly wrong? They will again, by slashing spending prematurely – as they did in the 1930s - if they win on 6 May.

"Over the past two years we have been reminded of the force for good that governments can be in protecting people," the chancellor said. He said it over and over again in different ways. "This has not happened by chance – but by choice." He kept citing the economy's more robust performance during the current recession compared with 1990-92.

A fair point, well made, it is the best line embattled Labour can adopt, though voters may not be in a mood to listen. In 1997 the positive power of the state was fashionable, due for a revival after the Thatcher years. This time it is being denounced as failed after all those disappointments. Voters may learn too late that their irritable judgment was shortsighted if a Cameron government slashes public spending more than Darling promises to do.

Where I felt unconvinced by the chancellor's text came when he magicked away those mountainous deficit figures and the national debt which piles up behind it. Will tax rises, spending cuts, efficiency savings and resumed economic growth – a very big ask, that one – really halve the deficit in four years so (relatively) painlessly?

Will resumed growth allow us to draw down debt as a percentage of national income (GDP) from a peak of 75% in 2014-15, lower than our G7 allies?

It would be nice to think so, but such calculations are way beyond the control of chancellors, Labour or Tory. As Darling noted the EU economies are still pretty flat. In the old days chancellors would have expressed a view on Chinese or Indian macroeconomic prospects, pretty important to us all now as the world searches for someone to whom to sell its goods.

Alas, the US and China are shaping up for political and economic clashes – exchange rates, domestic demand, inflation – which could upset a lot of apple carts. Seat belts on please.